U.C. Berkeley Debate, Part 2: “On Potts and Spitfires” [SK]

I was asked to repost this from my Facebook page....

Setting--April 8, UC Berkeley: I was debating Malcom Potts, the first International Medical Director for Planned Parenthood (who played a huge role in legalizing abortion in the UK) in front of 600 of his own students, nearly all of whom share his worldview. I like these hostile settings, as I have nothing to lose. It’s at these moments, that I channel my inner Spitfire. For you history buffs, the Spitfire was the plane that saved the West in 1940. England stood alone against Hitler, who was positioned to invade. But first he needed to destroy British air power. Though alone and vastly outnumbered, British Spitfire pilots took to the skies and shot down three invading aircraft for every one of their own that was lost. If you visit my home office, you will see Spitfire pictures prominently displayed along with a gorgeous picture of London. In short, if you are a pro-lifer, you are a Spitfire pilot. You fight no matter the odds.

My goal in these debates is not to convert everyone—that won’t happen—but give my critics something to think about. Maybe when they're 40 they'll change their minds based on something I said.

Both parties agreed to the format in early January. Each speaker would get 22 minutes for an opening, 12- minutes for rebuttal speeches, and 7-minutes for closing statements. The remaining time would be for audience Q&A. Last week, Potts twice tried to change the format. First, he asked that both speakers refrain from using visual aids—an obvious attempt to censor me using a short (55 second) DVD clip depicting abortion. I refused. I would never be so presumptuous as to suggest censoring my opponent’s remarks and I demand the same courtesy from him. Potts backed down. Second, he asked to shorten the formal speeches from 20-minute openings to 15-minute openings, with rebuttal speeches trimmed to 8 minutes and closing statements trimmed to 5 minutes. I rejected that specific proposal, but agreed to 18-minute openings, 10-minute rebuttals, and five minutes for closings. (Believing debates with Potts at Berkeley might become twice-yearly events, I decided to show a little flexibility.)

What Potts really wanted—and I knew this going in—was a non-debate. That is, instead of opening statements and rebuttals, he wanted to mostly skip those things and go right to Q&A from the audience. After all, so his argument went, those listening care more about their own questions than they do what the speakers have to say.

I didn’t fall for that, and neither should any of you that engage public debate. There were reasons Potts wanted to do it that way.

First, I knew from our previous debate that Potts had no formal case, only a series of disconnected assertions. Meanwhile, I had a formal case and he knew it. This was hugely problematic for him. If I lay out a well-reasoned argument for my position and he replies with a series of random assertions and emotional appeals, he’s going to run out of intellectual steam very early in the debate. Second, Potts knows it’s much easier to zing me with one-liners and personal attacks when he doesn’t have to answer my formal case. Third, Potts knows that if I only get two-minutes to answer him in a Q&A format, he can get away with asserting all kinds of things I’ll never get time to refute. The soundbite will carry the day! Thus, I insisted on having time to make my case and refute his.

Sure enough, Potts opened the debate by complaining—about me! “I wanted to have a discussion about this topic, but Scott insisted on turning this into a boxing match.” He spent much of his time throughout the exchange emphatically stating how outraged he was by my arguments—all the while failing to refute even one of them! This is very typical. The same exact thing happened with my debate with Kathryn Kholbert at Lehigh University in 2007. As Prager points out, when the Left doesn’t have arguments, it gets offended. Theater replaces discussion. Potts even stooped so low as to claim I want women to die from illegal abortion to deter women from seeking them! (He partially quoted—completely out of context and with words removed—a passage from my 1999 book “Pro-Lie 101.”) That’s the best he could do. By the Q&A, he was pacing the stage, nearly screaming, interrupting me at every turn. The debate moderators—both students of his—privately apologized to me for his behavior.

I did not respond with similar behavior. I challenged his ideas, but I did not call him names. Two Christian girls from Korea came up during the break and said, "Are you a Christian?" When I said yes, they replied: "We thought so. We’re so glad you are speaking because we're all alone here. We’re praying for you!” They returned after the debate, obviously thrilled I was able to make my case on hostile turf. Sure, some of Potts students cheered for him. That happens when you challenge the secular orthodoxy of the university culture.

In short, I’m glad to be a Spirtfire. Yes, I’m outnumbered and outgunned, but I don’t fly alone. Once airborne, I notice others with courage to enjoin the fight. First, there’s my LTI team—we aren’t afraid to go where the action is—Catholic and Protestant High Schools, Secular Universities, and Bible Colleges. Then, to my right, are Catholic young guns like Trent Horn, RJ McVeigh, and Stephanie Gray. To my left are young evangelicals like Josh Brahm, Daniel Rodger, and Clinton Wilcox. Leading the way, I see air-command represented by Frank Beckwith, Pat Lee, and J.P. Moreland—to name a few.

My fellow pro-lifers, you’re Spitfire pilots. So are those Korean girls at U.C. Berkeley. Put your flight jacket on. We’ve got a spot for you above the clouds.

Squirrels, Accidents, and Human Exceptionalism [SK]

I spoke to 1,500 Catholic high school students in Ontario (Canada) today. I get another 1,300 tomorrow. 

Catholic schools in Canada are funded by the government and are overwhelmingly secular. The dominant worldview is not much different than your average class at U.C. Berkeley. By far the most common objection I get from Canadian “Catholic” students goes like this. “You say you oppose all killing. So, are you a vegetarian?”

Today was no exception, as a female student made it very clear her beef with me was one of consistency: How could I be pro-life and enjoy a good Alberta steak whenever I visit Calgary? (Alberta has the best beef around—period!) Obviously, the student was channeling her inner Peter Singer. Indeed, the question stems from her belief that human life is morally equivalent to all other sentient beings.

Of course, her reply was flawed on several levels. For starters, my argument today wasn't that all killing is wrong. My argument was that it’s always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being. Elective abortion does just that, thus, I oppose it. Moreover, the sword cuts both ways: The student supported abortion, but not killing animals. Didn’t that make her inconsistent as well?

But I didn’t stay there. She was friendly and willing to engage, so I zeroed in on her God-given moral intuitions by relating two events from yesterday.

Me: During my drive from Albany (NY) to Guelph (Ontario), the car in front of me unintentionally flattened a squirrel who didn’t look before crossing. I didn’t stop to lend a hand. Was I wrong?

Student: No, that happens. As long as you didn’t try to hit him yourself, you didn’t do anything wrong.

Me. Agreed. Now how about this. Three hours later, just after crossing into Canada, I witnessed a horrific accident. A car behind me and to my left collided with the center rail and flipped end-over-end multiple times before finally coming to a stop (on its side) into a ditch. I immediately summoned 911 and stopped to lend assistance. (Miraculously, two women crawled out of the wreckage, but I’m doubtful the driver—trapped inside—made it.) I ended up staying on scene for two hours until the police finished clearing the crash site and interviewing me.

Student: That would freak me out.

Me. Ya, it didn’t make for easy sleep last night. But let’s change the story.

Student: Okay

Me: Suppose instead of stopping to help, I just drove on—like I did with the squirrel. Would that have been wrong?

Student: Ah, ya…

Me: But not wrong with the squirrel?

Student: Um, no.

Me: Why is that?

She had to leave for class, but hopefully that gave her something to chew on.

Debate w/ Malcom Potts (UC Berkeley): Outline of My Rebuttal re: Science of Embryology [SK]

One reason Potts completely melted down in front of 600 of his students was that I hit him very hard in his own area of expertise—embryology—demonstrating that he either did not know his science or was deliberately misleading. I was not sarcastic or disrespectful. But I continually pounded away on this question: “Why are all the other embryologists in the world wrong? Don’t you need to explain why they are wrong? You could be right, and I’m open to hearing that. But simply pulling rank on me won’t work. Give me a good argument why you are correct, and I will concede this debate.”

Of course, he never did.

[Stop reading here if you don’t want a detailed review.]

Below is an outline of his claims, and my responses to them. I began my rebuttal by quickly reviewing my opening case:

I. Review My Thesis: The unborn are distinct, living, whole humans. They are not constructed externally like a car, but develop themselves from within. Various embryology textbooks, like those cited in my opening speech, confirm this.

II. Dr. Potts’s response to my scientific case is not persuasive. He simply tried to pull rank on me. Here's what he said:

A. "No absolutes in embryology, only judgment calls."

1. Including that one? Self-defeating (like saying, “my brother is an only child”)
2. If we don’t know if the unborn are human, we shouldn’t kill them
3. But Potts does know. In our previous debate (last November), he pointed to a picture of an early embryo and said, “This is what you and I looked like after conception.” Thus, he just conceded my case!

B. "Absence of consensus—people disagree on embryo’s humanity."

1. So? How does it follow that because people disagree, nobody is right?
2. If disagreement means that nobody is right, Dr. Potts’s own position is refuted. After all, many prominent embryologists disagree with him!
3. Most important, we have a consensus: Embryology textbooks uniformly state each of us began as an embryo. Even thinkers who share Dr. Potts’s support for abortion agree (Alan Guttmacher, Ronald Dworkin, David Boonin, Peter Singer).
4. It’s not enough for Dr. Potts to pull rank on me: he needs to explain why my scientific case is flawed.

C. "No embryo is a living human until primitive streak emerges at 18 days"

1. Odd claim: Dr. Potts just told us we can’t know anything about embryology (no absolutes, only judgment calls) but now he says that we can’t be individual human beings before 18 days.
2. For a guy who says we can’t know anything about embryology he sure claims to know a lot!

D. Miscarriages—“Nature is the biggest abortionist.”

1. Potts commits the Is/Ought Fallacy: How does it follow that because nature spontaneously aborts high numbers of embryos that a) they are not living human beings, or b) I may deliberately kill them through elective abortion?
2. Many 3rd World countries have high infant mortality rates; does it follow that those infants who die sooner have less of a right to life than those who die later? 3. Admittedly, these miscarriages are tragic. But as liberal journalist Andrew Sullivan points out, just because earthquakes happen doesn’t mean mass murder is justified.

E. Hydatidiform Moles—“All acts of fertilization do not result in human organism.”

1. Confuses necessary and sufficient conditions: I’m not arguing that everything that results from sperm/egg union is human, only that all humans conceived without the aid of reproductive technologies came about that way.
2. Hydatidiform Moles moles do not start of as embryos and morph into tumors. Rather, they result from flawed or deficient conceptions and are intrinsically tumors from the beginning.

F. Ignorance—“Biological life is continuous, and any divisions between life and non-life are arbitrary judgement calls.”

1. This is demonstrably false. Just because life is continuous between generations does not mean we can’t tell when an individual human begins to exist. Dr. Potts still hasn't refuted the huge numbers of embryologists who disagree with him.
2. Abortionists know what they are killing—Warren Hern: “We have reached a point in this particular technology (D&E) where there is no possibility of denials of an act of destruction by the operator. It is before one’s eyes. The sensations of dismemberment flow through the current like an electric current.”
3. Planned Parenthood Brochure (1961—“Plan Your Children for Health and Happiness”): “An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun.”
4. California Medicine (1970): "Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices. It is suggested that this schizophrenic sort of subterfuge is necessary because while a new ethic is being accepted the old one has not yet been rejected."

G. H. Soul confusion—“Embryologist can’t say when life begins anymore than an astronomer can say what happens to the soul after death.”

1. True, science can’t tell us if embryos (or anyone else) has souls—that’s a philosophical question—but the science of embryology can tell us when each of us began (conception).
2. As I said earlier, many of Pott’s colleagues disagree with him on the empirical question of when life begins.
3. We don’t need decide if embryos have souls before deciding to protect them. The law doesn’t take a position on whether 35-year olds have souls, but it still forbids intentionally killing them.

H. “Ectopic pregnancy proves unborn are not human, as every doctor in the world will kill that embryo to save the mother.”

1. From the fact a doctor saves a woman’s life by treating ectopic pregnancy, with the unintended result the embryo dies, we are to conclude what—that the embryo wasn’t human and intentionally killing him is okay?
2. Treating ectopic pregnancy and elective abortion are not parallel. In the first case, the death of the developing human is foreseen but not intended. In the second, the death of the developing human being is both foreseen and intended.

How Your Pastor can Say a Few Words About Kermit Gosnell [SK]

This is not a substitute for a sermon, but a brief reminder to the congregation of what a "pro-life" church looks like. Here's what a pastor might say....

I’m going to take five minutes comment on a horrific case you’re not hearing much about in the news—the Kermit Gosnell abortion trial. I want us to pray about that case today--namely, that God will use the horrific details to expose evil and awaken the moral conscience of a nation.

Kermit Gosnell is a late-term abortionist who killed not only unborn humans, but those who survived his grisly procedures and were born alive. He killed them by slitting open the backs of their necks and severing their spinal cords. One nurse at Gosnell’s clinic said she heard one of the babies born alive screaming before Gosnell killed him. It’s against that horrific backdrop that I make my remarks today.

Our church is unashamedly pro-life, and you need to know what we mean by that.

First, our pro-life church is pro-human value. While the secular culture reduces human value to your functional abilities, we unashamedly affirm the clear Biblical teaching that humans have value because they bear the image of their Maker. Genesis 1 teaches this in the Old Testament and James 3 teaches it in the New—to name just a few passages. Scripture also teaches that because humans bear the image of God, the shedding of innocent blood is strictly forbidden. That is to say, Scripture condemns the intentional killing of innocent human beings. Again, both Old and New Testaments affirm this in places like Exodus 23, Proverbs 6, and Matthew 5. From this it logically follows that if the unborn are human beings—and the science of embryology affirms that they are—the commands against shedding innocent blood apply to the unborn as they do everyone else.

Second, our pro-life church is pro-gospel. While the secular culture insists that right and wrong are up to you, we affirm the clear biblical teaching that moral truths are objective, grounded in God’s holy character. Sadly, we humans—every last one of us—are rebels by nature. We don’t just act badly; we are bad by nature. Outside the saving work of Christ, we justly stand condemned whether we’ve had abortions or not. This is precisely why Jesus didn’t come to condemn the world. He didn’t need to. We were condemned already (John 3:17-18). Thankfully, God didn’t leave us in our default position. He sent Jesus to bear in full his righteous wrath against our sin—including the sin of abortion. God proved Christ’s sacrifice was sufficient by raising him from the dead! Here’s the takeaway: For those who trust in Jesus alone for rescue, their past, present, and future sins are covered with the perfect righteousness of Christ. You know what I call that? I call that great news for those who’ve participated in abortion. If you’ve had an abortion or even performed one like Dr. Gosnell, you don’t need an excuse—you need an exchange: Christ’s righteousness for your sinfulness. Not only will God give you that righteousness, he’ll adopt you into his family as a dearly loved child. So, don’t relativise your sin; run to the One who takes it away.

Third, our pro-life church is pro-equipping. My job as a pastor is to convey biblical truth in a way that equips you to engage friends who don’t share your Christian worldview. Upon hearing the truth about Dr. Gosnell, many of your friends who support abortion will protest that you are comparing apples to oranges. You’ll be told that killing a fetus before birth is one thing but killing one after is quite another. Really? You need to engage them with a powerful argument, one you can communicate in three minutes or less. Begin with science: The facts of embryology establish that from the earliest stages of development, the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings. True, they have yet to grow and mature, but they are whole human beings nonetheless. Leading embryology textbooks affirm this. Next, argue Philosophy: As Stephen Schwarz points out, there is no morally significant difference between the embryo you once were and children Dr. Gosnell brutally killed after birth. Sure, there are differences between born and unborn humans, but are those differences morally significant? They are not. Differences of size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency are not good reasons for saying you had no right to life then but you do now. (The pastor can use the SLED acronym to illustrate this.)

To sum up, don’t let your friends focus exclusively on Dr. Gosnell. Refocus them on the holocaust before their very eyes, the one that snuffs out 4,000 lives a day. Pray Christ is glorified in your conversations, then work hard to give a reason for the hope that lies within you. These are dark days. But surrender to evil is not an option for our church. We’re commanded to expose evil, not cover it up (Eph.5). Let’s get to work.

Pray for This Soldier [SK]

Text message from our son Tyler, serving in a combat role in Afghanistan:

[Warning: Graphic and disturbing content]

hey dad. today was a really emotional day for me and a few other soldiers that were with me. there was a little afghan girl at the age of 6 that stepped on a pressure plate IED today and the afghan police brought her to us as fast as they could. we brought her back to our compound to give her first aid and care for her. pretty much the entire right side of her body was blown off and she lost her right arm. we tried to care for her as much as we could but we couldnt save her...she ended up dying on the operating table when we tried to stabalize her and wait for the medevac helicopter to come in and pick her up. i cant describe how i feel right now but i could just about throw up right now. just pray for me please and pray for the family of that little girl.

thanks dad, love you

Conversation on Rape and Abortion [SK]

Could it get any better? An exit-row seat near the back of the 757 meant 10 feet of legroom to go with a good book, right? 

The legroom was awesome. But there would be no stretching out to read on this flight. To my left was a vacationing couple (early 50s), complete with their cruise-line hats and shirts. He was mellow. But she was a nervous flyer. Her husband warned me up front: “She will talk you to death.”

That she did. It didn’t help that I boarded the plane carrying (rather than stowing) Chris Kaczor’s excellent book The Ethics of Abortion. Seizing on the title, she was off to the races. One of her early comments went like this: “So you speak on abortion? Interesting. I'm not for abortion, but I just can't see how anyone could tell a woman who is raped that it’s wrong to have one. That makes absolutely no sense to me.”

Figuring my anticipated read from Kaczor's book was not forthcoming, I engaged using a tactic borrowed from Doug Wilson:

“Tell me, when rape results in pregnancy, how many humans do you think are involved in that pregnancy—two or three?”

“Two…no, three [turning to her husband], three, right? Ya, three.”

“I agree. Let’s talk about each one. Is the rapist guilty and does he deserved to be punished?”

“Yes, totally.”

“Agreed. Should we execute him for the rape?”

“No! I’m against the death penalty. He should be in jail for a long time, maybe forever.” (Husband jumps in with a smile: “Honey, stop now. This isn’t going to end well for you.”)

“Is the woman guilty? Should we execute her for the rape?”

“Of course not! That’s terrible! That’s what those Muslim countries do—what do they call those things, honor killings?—where the woman gets raped and her husband or father kills her because she’s defiled the family name. That just plain evil.”

“Agreed. Now what about her unborn offspring, is he guilty?”

“No”

“So of the three people involved in the pregnancy resulting from rape, you won’t execute the guilty rapist but you will execute the innocent child?”

[Husband nodding, immediately grasping my point]

"Oh. Let me think about this for a minute..."

We had a fruitful conversation from that point forward. I didn't convince her on the spot, but perhaps I gave her something to think about. As Dennis Prager points out, clarity is preferable to agreement.

LTI Q & A #2: Abortion is Self-Defense [Jay Watts]

I recently received this question via e-mail and decided to share my response on the blog. Here is the original message:

Hi,

I recently engaged in an online discussion where one of the commenters said, "I actually think a fetus is at least becoming human, although it hasn't quite gotten there yet, but I support abortion as self-defense. Any thing that threatens a woman's life, happiness, health, finances, and general well-being is something she can choose to defend herself against.  I am wondering how you would respond to this objection/argument.  Thank you all for what you're doing!  I've learned a lot from Mr. K and others!

Response:

This is a tough argument, but not because the substance of the claims are particularly sophisticated. The problem is the arguer is confused about what they are arguing and this commonly leads to confusion in the audience. This is something that we really need to look out for, because in the world of on-line arguing (a world I try hard to avoid) failure to respond immediately is understood as an indication that a comment has some intellectual force.

Here is a good way to begin. Let's ask ourselves questions. How is this person justifying abortion? Why do they think it is a good thing or minimally a necessary thing?

This commenter thinks that abortion is justified as self-defense. This justification is generally a form of the principle of double effect. Defending oneself from an unjustified or unprovoked attack is a good action. If you defend yourself intending to defend yourself and an intrinsically valuable human being dies as a result – because they were attacking you and your defense required killing them – then the act of causing the death of the attacker is justified because you did not intend to do evil. Your intention was to stop or limit evil and the death was a result of the good intentions. The killing was not the purpose of the action. You meant to save yourself and your attacker got killed in the process.

But this is weird. Self defense is a justification. The commenter begins by saying that they believe that the unborn aren't human yet. So if the unborn are not human then why justify your actions toward them at all. Killing non-human life doesn't appear to be the kind of action that requires a system of justification intended to provide moral reasons for killing an attacker. If the unborn are not human then no need for this extra step. The justification is that they are not human in the same way that you and I are and that's that.

Let's give our arguer the benefit of the doubt, though. They actually believe that the unborn are human beings and appeal to self-defense. This argument sounds reasonable enough because it appeals to a commonly held intuition. If a person intended to do me harm or intruded into my house then many people agree I am justified in taking action to protect myself that may end in the death of the aggressor.

But the commenter applies standards that might not be so obviously true by intuition, right? Life? Absolutely. Happiness? So would she be justified in killing a boyfriend in the process of breaking up with her? Do we permit lethal action when our happiness is threatened? If so there some people who talk in movies that are in for a surprise the next time I go to a theater. Health? To what degree? Some lady pushing a whooping cough little kid in the grocery store is threatening my health. The coughing and feverish fellow on MARTA who went to the Falcon's game when he should have stayed home with the flu is threatening the health of us all. Do we condone lethal action in those cases? Flu can be fatal, so this is not trivial. In the last 30 years 3,000 to 52,000 people in the United States die from flu every year with more recent averages being in the 25,000 to 36,000 range. Are inconsiderate people fighting through their symptoms to expose us all a threat we can terminate? Finances? So the guy that is better at my job than me threatens my financial security and I want to rid myself of this threat. Kill him or no? The two year old that got sick at the wrong time threatens the finances of the single mother and her two older children. Kill her? If not, why not? General well being? That is so vague as to mean anything inconvenient. The power of the argument is that most people accept the principle already, but the application here is so broad as to put anyone a woman encounters on any given day at risk of being killed as an aggressor.

Let's look at the traditional self defense model. Is the unborn analogous to a dangerous aggressor? Is it trying to hurt the mother? No. The mother's body and the unborn are working in concert to create a safe environment for the nascent human life to develop and receive nourishment. Most pregnancies do not represent an immediate threat to women. The properly working reproductive system is working in accordance with it's purpose and not being invaded by a parasite or foreign pathogen. Unlike the home invader, the unborn is exactly where it is supposed to be given the predictable and understood developmental process that all human life goes through. Except in the cases of rape, the unborn is not only where it is supposed to be but is there as a direct result of the actions of the woman. This seems wildly different in nature than the kind of aggressor that we accept can be killed by our common intuitions.

So how would I handle this commenter? I would point out that they seem to be confusing their arguments. If they think the unborn aren't human in morally important ways then they need to argue why that is. If they think that women are justified in taking morally important life because that life is analogous to a dangerous aggressor then they need to defend two points: (1) their insanely broad concept of behaviors that justify killing human life and (2) how a life that is exactly where it ought to be in a natural physical relationship that is not - under normal circumstances – dangerous or threatening is comparable to home invaders, assaulters, and attempted murderers.

Hope that helps.